Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spyware terminator (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was terminate. Krimpet (talk) 03:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spyware terminator

Spyware terminator (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Spam. —Cryptic 06:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Under G11. The article has been AfD'd, proposed speedy, blanked, re-CSD, deleted, restored (in good faith?), and is now back to its blatant advertising. I think this article is spyware itself! Can it be deleted then protected? -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 07:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Working on rewriting it, please consider keeping Rajeshontheweb 08:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your rewrites still read like an advertisement. It describes all about the software just as the back of a software box might (features, system requirements, etc.). Your references appear to be press releases and download links, not reliable secondary sources. What makes this notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia? -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 13:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete and protect per WP:CSD G4: recreation of deleted material. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete just an ad. JJL 16:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin Since this has been speedy deleted and restored at least twice before, please use the standard AfD procedure and let the discussion run for 5 days. Sr13 18:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You are telling me that this reads like an advertisement? Boy, wizzard2k, you really need to concern yourself over other articles. Why not, instead of deleting it, you take it upon yourself to edit it so that it complies with whatever ridiculuos standards you have? Oh, but that is right, you don't want to put in the work for an article that reads like an advertisement, I forgot. So why don't you just leave the article alone to the people who actually care about spreading the awareness of a perfectly legitimate software title, which is NOT spyware, mind you... (this is something you should know if you were well read on your citation procedures here on Wikipedia (notice the citation in the introduction). Please, stop running a blatantly negative campaign against a perfectly legitimate application and go back to using your trusty combination of Ad-Aware+SpyBot. Thanks. Cableguytk 00:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Duly Noted >/dev/null -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 00:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, u guys. Just noticed the article had been edited again to look like an advert and had lost its notability last night but i have tried to restore it . please review and post the deviations noted in Spyware terminator's talk page or here (if it is gonna stay here long!) but i assure u, this is not an effort to promote the product or advertise it, it is purely a pilot effort to create a wikipedia article on spyware terminator . Please tolerate the newbie mistakes and give us some more time to adjust it. As i had mentioned to the earlier admin / senior wiki editors, i repeat, we will strive to adapt this article to wikipedia norms and the cleanup tag was added to clarify this interest. Afterall, i wouldnt have expected wikipedia to delete an article which might be good looking just because some one edited it to look bad. we are ready to take advise from seniors out there and any body is welcome blatantly delete those parts of the article which sound like advert rather than deleting the article, please. PS: Upon required, we are interested to leave the cleanup tag till some admin removes it when he is convinced with the article meeting wikipedia requirements. Rajeshontheweb 06:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• If you really want to make an article about it, make the article about it, not about what it does. (See Use-mention distinction). Take out the system requirements, that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Features probably don't belong unless there's a particular feature that's exceptionally noteworthy, and has reliable secondary sources verifying its notability. You've got quite a bit of work for this one, but if the sources exist, it might not be impossible. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 06:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• delete again per g11 (as it stands). I also don't see any proof of notability. I was going to G4 it since it was nuked less than two weeks ago, but I saw it was restored. Whsitchy 00:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to minimise non-notable stuff as much as possible. In fact, i have tried to source all the material based on the reviews available online elsewhere. (It can be noted for all articles i have included references) as i mentioned before, please specify the areas i need to work more on. being a new bie, i am still interested in learning and making this a proper article rather than post some unworthy stuff pls advise (A couple of lines have been added by other unknown contributors and i am trying to source the notability of those stuff - i have posted in the article's talk page too. also, if u look at the history of the page, there is quite a few statements we have removed due to its advertising nature / non notability. Rajeshontheweb 04:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.